Can Women Reduce the Career Cost of Motherhood?

Many strategies women use to reduce the cost of motherhood may prove ineffective

Extensive sociological research documents a career cost to motherhood, both in terms of wages (Correll and Benard 2010; Miller 2011) and occupational status (Abendroth, Huffman, and Treas 2014). In general, both earnings and occupational status increase over the course of one’s career. However, motherhood is associated not only with an immediate drop in earnings and status but also by slower subsequent growth in both earnings and occupational status over time (Abendroth et al. 2014; Miller 2011). That is, the birth of a child is not only a discrete event that has an immediate, negative impact on women’s careers. It also signals a transition to a permanent new status—motherhood—and to a slower-growth career trajectory.

Some women willingly sideline their careers to focus on their children, but even for these women the lower pay and status associated with the motherhood penalty is unfair because it results in part from discrimination against mothers, regardless of their demonstrated competence (Correll and Benard 2010). Moreover, women are increasingly committed to their careers. In a recent survey of young adults (ages 18-34), more young women than men stated that being successful in a high-paying career or profession is “one of the most important things” or” very important” in their lives (Pew Research 2012). Clearly, mitigating the negative career impact of motherhood is of vital importance. Yet research suggests that many individual-level strategies, such as delaying age at first birth or having only one child, are of limited efficacy.

Becoming a mother has both an immediate, negative impact on women’s wages and also permanently reduces their rate of wage growth and occupational advancement (Abendroth et al. 2014; Miller 2011). In part, this effect can be explained by women’s working hours—motherhood is associated with a reduction in working hours which lowers earnings and occupational status (Abendroth et al. 2014; Miller 2011). This suggests one path by which women might counter the negative career effects of motherhood (by working longer hours). However, reduced working hours may result in part from discrimination (e.g., less responsibility and fewer opportunities at work) rather than from mothers’ preferences. In addition, working longer hours reduces mothers’ time with children, requiring a substitute for maternal care which may not be readily available (access to quality daycare is limited: Clawson and Gerstel 2002).

Although delaying the timing of the transition to motherhood may seem like an obvious means of lessoning its impact, research is mixed. Miller (2011) estimates that a year delay in first birth increases women’s earnings by 9%. The reduction to women’s wage growth is smaller for women who delay motherhood, in part because such women tend to work longer hours after birth (Miller 2011). Interestingly, this effect is larger for women with college degrees and for women in professional and managerial occupations—those women who generally enjoy the steepest wage growth benefit most from delaying birth. However, the potential career benefits of delaying motherhood are inconsistent across other, similar analyses. For example, using longitudinal data on women from several European countries, Abendroth et al (2014) do not find that delaying the timing of a first birth lessons its impact on occupational status over time. The first birth is associated with an immediate drop in occupational status and a slower growth trajectory, compared to childless women, and the career cost of becoming a mother is not lessened by delaying the first birth.

Some women may choose to have fewer children (or only one child) in order to reduce the career cost of motherhood but this may not be an effective strategy. Abendroth et al (2014) find that the first birth is the most damaging to occupational status, causing an immediate drop in status and slower growth in status over time. In other words, new mothers suffer a decrease in status at the time of birth and fall further behind as their child ages. Having a second or third birth causes another immediate drop in status but generally does not further flatten women’s status growth trajectory. If it is the first birth that is most detrimental to women’s occupational advancement, opting to have only one child is an ineffective strategy to reduce the negative career effects of motherhood.

However, there is some evidence that employing substitutes for maternal care may reduce the occupational motherhood penalty. Anecdotal evidence and profiles of top CEOs suggest that women who are extremely successful in their careers without opting out of motherhood often have stay-at-home husbands (Hymowitz 2012). Obviously, not all women can afford (or desire) stay-at-home husbands or even full-time nannies, but better childcare options may help women combine career success and motherhood. Indeed, Abendroth et al (2014) find that motherhood does less damage to women’s occupational status in countries that prioritize public childcare and early childhoodeducation. Such programs may allow women to take less time off work (resulting in less real or perceived depreciation of human capital and thus a smaller drop in occupational status) and to work longer hours after returning to work. In addition, by supporting women’s employment rather than encouraging women to opt out of employment, such policies may reduce negative stereotypes of motherhood as incompatible with career success. Thus, although doubtless controversial, expansions in the availability of quality childcare may promote gender equity in employment.

In any case, the importance of national policy context demonstrates that the motherhood penalty is not entirely within the control of individual mothers, as does extensive evidence of discrimination against mothers (e.g., Correll and Benard 2010). As with many dimensions of social inequality, individual behavior can influence individual outcomes, but such strategies do not alter the underlying, structural determinants of inequality. The occupational motherhood penalty is a social problem, not just an individual problem, and eliminating it will entail social and institutional change.

Really? Being a mother is now a penalty? Having a "high paying" career is more important than not working long hours so that you may spend more time with your children? What a disgusting tradeoff. It is precisely this kind of shortsightedness that is turning men away from feminist women. If women think that "equality" means "more money" we're on the wrong track. A family is not a commodity. The reality is that if you want a good family, you're going to have to give up being that high-rolling millionaire you've always pictured in your head. Women are starting to sound like the very men that they've been struggling against for generations, chasing after material wealth and fluffed-up careers at the expense of their families.

And as a now divorced 50 something former Stay at Home mom, who supported my husband for 23 years while the "career sacrifices" were made by me, I am financially devastated today - that's my reward for not being more of a Feminist. If I could do it all over again, I would have insisted on a Pre Nup. or POST Nup that outlined specific compensation (on top of the 50/50 split) for each year "we" decided I should stay out of the work force if the marriage ended in divorce (and it did, due to his infidelity). Happy marriages are not typically "traditional marriages" (hense the advent of Feminism). No, happy marriages are those between two equal partners, and equal meaning the sacrifices are shared. Had I insisted on a financial provision for my career sacrifice, I bet he would have found a way to contribute to the kids needs so I could keep working also (or figured out how to remain faithful so he would not have to pay it out). This is not about greed, or material wealth. It is about partnership and fairness. Back in the good old days, when women sacrificed careers to raise kids, the courts granted Lifetime Alimony for the value of her non paid contribution . . . I don't suppose your willing to offer that to your wife should either of you want out one day?

I got half of our assets (which are all retirement funds except equity in our house which I will need for gap years when I'm not receiving support), I got $40,000 alimony until he retires (3 more years), at which point I'm on my own (I work full time for $38,000/yr) until I can retire. That's all standard stuff bozo. He makes 6 times what I earn. It's what a judge awarded me. Period.

The occupational motherhood penalty is a social problem, not just an individual problem, and eliminating it will entail social and institutional change.

When you have children instead of two dogs, you will understand just how unimportant this statement is.

You can't eliminate this penalty without artificially increasing the cost of hiring women OR eliminating motherhood. Perhaps when we can grow our children in a vat and remove maternal instincts, then your dream will be a reality.

I think there are a couple important points that are missing from discussion:

(1) Time is a limited resource. The implication being that a parent (i.e. mother OR father) who chooses to spend more time on their career will inevitably have less time for their children, and vice versa.

(2) The research almost never asks: why do people want children? Or: why do people want high-paying jobs?

In today's organizational environment I find that jobs are high-paying precisely because they require more commitment of time and effort than those that pay less...and that makes sense. So when it's said that "more young women than men stated that being successful in a high-paying career or profession is 'one of the most important things' or ' very important' in their lives", the first question that came to mind was: why?

Owing to the fact that time is a limited resource, the next question is: what are their priorities? Do they want high-paying jobs for status? More material possessions? Is this really healthy behaviour? If they say that they want to make more money for their children, then I could argue that a "modest" salary can accomplish that; you don't need a job that pays hundreds of thousands of dollars per year to do that.

If young women and men actually want to pursue "high-paying" jobs (whatever they may be) for their children's sake, then it makes me wonder about their children's development and mental health. Throughout human history, children have always needed time with their parents to develop into healthy adults. Leaving children to child care centres to do the rearing just sounds disastrous for the children. Besides, if parents didn't want to spend time with their children, then why have children in the first place?

with the divorce statistics what they are. Grey divorce rates are higher than ever, with vast numbers of men leaving marriages once the children are grown (and the work is done!) leaving women holding the bag for the MUTUAL decision to have children. Even more divorces are filed by women who are sick and tired of emotional abuse, lack of a partner, infidelity, and many other intolerable "cannot grow old with this" behavior. Study after study shows men still do not share an equal balance for domestic responsiblies especially with time spent raising kids (even in families with women working full time outside the home). I am not bashing men . . . I wish I had chosen better and not gone through this myself. But study after study informs these realites are more commonplace than the exception. And yes, I realize that "some marriages" do not suffer a grey divorce, and "some men" do contribute closer to an equal level, but considering 50% of the marriages end in divorce, and of the 50% that remain, half of are miserable with a spouse "making due" because he or she does not see an alternative. The fastest growing segment of divorce is the "grey divorce" once kids are grown . . . and women, working or not, are left financially devasted to a far greater degree than men. This is the Motherhood Penalty. There is no Fatherhood Penalty. Women need to think very carefully about compromising their current salary and the impact it will have long into the future, should their marriage not work out. The courts do not provide "back pay" for the lost earnings due to a mother who raised the kids. It is devastating to be to realize just how steep the Motherhood Penalty is when if you suffer a grey divorce. If you were a stay at home mom, the penalty is even worse while the husbands of these women enjoy a career trajectory of a "single man" due to someone else handling everything at home. The court system no longer awards much alimony for a Stay at Home spouse. In my state, I was given 5 years for 23 year marriage and that is as a former Stay At Home mom who left her high paying (masters degree) career due to health issues of a "failure to thrive" (in daycare) 14 month old and a (now former) spouse who was unwilling to contribute to the home (he also pressured for) could enjoy consistent quality care (something we could not find when I was working). I do not regret a moment of the time I spent with my children and certainly they have benefited from my being there for them. But it has come at a terrible cost to my ability to support myself now. My kids, only beginning their own careers are not in a position to "support mom" and what is available to me is less money than what I earned at the age of 30 (when I agreed to leave my job at tremendous pressure from my husband). This is not a "mommy war" - it makes me sick that women are forced to consider these issues - but failure to do so is at your own peril. This is about survival. Great article . . . something my daughters need to read when they are considering families of their own!!!

My own Mom (born 1936) only remained out of the workforce for 14 years (from 1958-1972) because she knew of those long term costs you so well detailed (I was born 1958). Her first order of business was to train us to rely on ourselves, and that a man or marriage is not to be considered a sound or reliable long term retirement plan. Husbands oftentimes die or run off and divorce happens - best be prepared. One must craft their own plan.

I am so thankful for that saavy advice. I never had children, but I had a robust career that allowed me to retire at the age of 43 - totally financially independent and since I was single my federal pension is not subject to being considered a "divisible marital asset" (you must be married at the time you earn it to be considered a "divisible marital asset"). My current spouse will never have a claim to my pension.

My sister also has her own long term government career (she had one child and was never out of the workforce), and divorced after 28 years of marriage. Since we live in an "equitable division" state, she had to pay her spouse $65,000 dollars to "equalize" the retirement assets. His failure to properly fund his union 401k, and her insistence on robustly funding her state 457 - in the end, cost her big. They both had good careers and equal opportunities to earn and save money (in fact he made about 3 times what she did), in the end, she had to pay the price. However, she is in a better place now. I cringe to think - had she opted out of the workplace for years - where she would be today. Probably living close to poverty.

Mother's lessons stuck with us (stay in the workforce and get a retirement plan in place), for which I am darn grateful.

No-fault divorce was the death knell for marriage. Anytime you take something that's supposed to be a lifelong commitment and through in something like no-fault divorce, the institution becomes a racket. Marriage rates have been declining for decades. Recent research proves that divorce rates have remained high for decades. Singles are now the majority.

In fault divorce, the spouse that causes the breakdown of the marriage ends up paying a deep penalty, which results in fewer acting badly in marriage and a more healthy institution. With no-fault divorce, you simply fall out of love, have an affair and viola! You're screwed!

Prenups don't protect you from a spouse that runs up massive debts or empties your bank account to go on a spending spree. What's more, prenups can be thrown out and lose their protection value over time. A prenup is the same as saying, "In case things go bad, you won't be able to screw me over." It's no different than admitting that marriage isn't a life long commitment, which further weakens marriage as an institution.

In the future, only about 20-30% will marry. Why? Both men and women are learning how life destroying divorce can be. As a result, with each decade that passes, fewer will marry. Contrary to popular belief, back in the day, marriage was slavery for men, too.

"Can Women Reduce the Career Cost of Motherhood?" Yeah, but as most will be single, they'll have to reduce that cost through government and corporate subsidies. Just as you cannot rely on your spouse anymore, you won't be able to rely on your cohabiting partner either.